This topic was started in our temporary home on the AARoads forum, when usaak was an in-development system (it now is in preview). The thread there is http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16714.0 That includes several of my posts with background on the draft system, and si404's peer review of my initial draft.

After I've finished another draft completely working in Si's comments (my life got pretty busy since then with other projects), and also checking in with the state DOT about a possible route truncation, I'll put the system out for a second round of peer review, before activation. There are some unusual issues that could use additional input from the team.

Please post any comments, etc. here, rather than on the Travel Mapping board on the AARoads forum (we are trying not to add new material there, now that we have our own forum).

I can have a look at the Alaska shapefiles you linked. If their X,Y coords are stored as floating-point long,lat pairs, then I can use GISplunge, or get coords from QGIS. If not, then I can still get coords from QGIS. Probably. It's a wee bit difficult, but can be done.

Thanks. I'm not sure I need coordinates for any routes, I mentioned the shapefiles mainly as an alternate online form of documentation for what I already have based on largely offline resources. The AK 6 part of the Steese Highway is where my mapping is sketchiest, since I clinched it in 1994 and didn't feel like going back there armed with a GPS receiver in 2012 (by that point, I was way behind schedule on what turned into a two-and-a-half-month road trip). Ditto the McCarthy Road part of AK 10, which I drove but didn't use my GPS receiver east of Chitina. So if you want to try out an Alaska shapefile or two, I suggest those.

Alaska DOT&PF normally organizes its highway data by named highway (such as Steese Highway) and 6-digit internal inventory number (152000 for the Steese, 198000 for the Edgerton Hwy/McCarthy Rd.), rather than by posted route number, so a data search for the posted number will likely get you nowhere.

Good news:I downloaded the shapefiles (http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwdplng/mapping/shapefiles.shtml) you linked in this post (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16714.msg2102165#msg2102165), and set up a QGIS project enabling on-the-fly Coordinate Reference System transformation -- meaning, I can grab coords from QGIS.

Bad news:The coordinate data are not stored as floating-point, so GISplunge is useless with these shapefiles.

Good news:Again, I can still grab coords from QGIS, at least. Just position the mouse pointer, copy the Long/Lat format from the Coordinate box, and paste.The new QGIS 2.8 is much, MUCH faster than previous versions, and getting point coords from QGIS itself is no longer such a ponderous chore.

Bad news:No point of reference a lot of the time. Looks like just the state roads are included. So if CDS_NUM 152035 (AK6 FaiCrkRd (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=65.334455&lon=-146.272122)) is included, OK, line up the mouse pointer and away we go. For local roads not included in the shapefiles, or for shaping points, bad luck.

Rambling:I've thought about the concept of writing a utility to convert shapefiles from various CRS/projections to long/lat format, or adding functionality to make such conversions to GISplunge. Only thought about it, though. The steep initial learning curve involved has put me off the task; I'm regarding it as more time & effort than it's worth. (That, and writing code to handle each projection -- Mercator, Transverse Mercator, Polyconic, Fuller/Dymaxion (LOLJK), etc. etc. etc. -- how far down does that rabbit hole go?) GISplunge in Canada, with the GeoBase files, is good enough for me.A faster and simpler solution might be to adapt my old WPT2SHP code, and write a util to make point shapefiles out of WPTs, which could then be loaded into QGIS. From there, I could eyeball the distance to the nearest point on the roadway arc shapes, position the mouse pointer, and yadda yadda. This would provide good results for shaping points, but local road junctions could still end up being off by a bit.I'm not too keen on doing this either though; first I would want to fix GISplunge's dislike for missing terminal linefeeds, as that code applies here. And that's a very low priority for me.OK, so this may not all be terribly relevant to usaak... :)

Edit: It does look like OSM's mapping has improved considerably along the Steese Highway (I didn't look at McCarthy Road), so it looks like you could do another pass thru & use OSM to improve point locations if you wanted.

On AK2, waypoint 145 (SuzAve) doesn't seem to intersect with a road currently. Would a point at the pipeline overlook be prudent with as many people as only go that far north on the highway? The shape point at 146 could probably be moved to accomplish the goal without adding an actual point.

No need to write my own utility; I can just use QGIS to save a layer in floating-point format.With a couple other recent tweaks to the GISplunge code, ripping records from Alaska is now possible.In case you're interested: https://github.com/yakra/HighwayData/tree/SegDump/hwy_data/AK/SegDumpI can produce more if you'd like.Plenty of points here; you can load it up in WPTedit, switch to OSM, Google, satellite, or whatever view, and cherry-pick points to your heart's content.The only real drawback is too much of a good thing -- with 29869 waypoints in one file & 18659 in the other, it can be a bit much for WPTedit to handle at once. You may want to load in a few hundred or thousand points at a time, whatever your computer can handle.

I looked at the files you cranked out, in a web browser and a text editor. I have no clue on how to use them, and in particular I didn't see anything resembling coordinates. What am I missing?

I'm not sure I'll need to use those coordinates, even though they're for the two routes with the worst mapping where I didn't supplement that with handheld GPS reads (AK 6, and AK 10 east of Chitina), since I think I was able to draft adequate route files with what was available from Mapnik.

When I return to usaak, to incorporate the peer review already completed and work in other updates, I might have some specific coordinate/route segment requests. That will probably happen early in the new year, once I'm finished getting usaca ready for peer review. I'm down to about three dozen usaca routes in need of updates, though some of the remaining urban routes may have issues about what to do with relinquishments.

The coordinates are definitely there (https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yakra/HighwayData/SegDump/hwy_data/AK/SegDump/152000-1064.wpt), openstreetmap URLs as always. They might just be harder to make out amidst all the perfectly-justified text and noisy, auto-generated numeric waypoint "labels".

Not going to ask that you use this data, by any means. I had tried unsuccessfully to extract it back in February. After a few modifications to GISplunge over the last few days, it finally worked. I am terribly pleased with myself, and have been spamming (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19635.msg2276828#msg2276828) up the internet (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=2291) accordingly. :D

I've been updating usaak's route files, and those for the concurrent unsigned Interstate routes which are already active. In the process, I'm also addressing si404's comments long ago on the first draft, which were posted long ago in our temporary home on the aaroads forum (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16714.0) before we set up this forum. My updates are completed and online, except for two long routes (AK 1, and I-A1) I'm still working on.

One issue not raised previously is for a file I've already updated, ak.ak010cor (the isolated Cordova segment of AK 10). Part of the route (east of a point marked in the route file as TempEnd) has been cut off to most vehicle traffic since a pair of bridge failures in the Copper River delta in 2011, much to the consternation of Cordova officials since the highway served the historic "Million Dollar Bridge", a popular tourist attraction which I visited twice pre-closures. Soon thereafter the state DOT worked up some plans to reopen the river crossings, but decided not to proceed at that time due to lack of funds. Funding availability is not imminent, and might depend on increases in oil prices and/or production on the North Slope to refill the state's coffers.

The closures are indefinite, but not necessarily permanent. As of August 2015 (long after the decision to indefinitely postpone bridge repairs), the DOT was still counting the entire route in its mileage totals for the state highway system, rather than just the miles between Cordova and the closed bridges. Moreover, much of the highway east of the closures is still being used for vehicle traffic. In particular, a tour operator is using a jetboat to ferry travelers around the closed bridges, then using a van parked on the other side of the river to take them to and from the Million Dollar Bridge.

I would not truncate AK 10 (Cordova), especially with all the trouble I went through to clinch it (including one attempted visit to Cordova foiled by a jet engine failure). We handled a bridge demolition in the middle of IN 912 in Gary, Indiana differently, but I think that proved in retrospect to have been overly hasty. At the time CHM's webmaster decided to split the route, it looked like that bridge closure was permanent. But several years later that state's DOT started construction on a new bridge (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=389.msg2126#msg2126) to reconnect the IN 912 segments.

While procrastinating on Christmas shopping (but at least doing so in a productive manner), I've finished my updating of the usaak route files, as well as the concurrent Interstate route files. That included recentering and other point moves where Mapnik improved its mapping of some routes; some renames of points not known to be in use (maddening inconsistency among online maps, especially on AK 1 in the Kenai Peninsula south of Soldotna); streamlining point removals; and removing unused alt labels in the Interstate files.

There are no Datacheck errors except for unavoidable visible distance and one sharp angle error, which I'll mark as FPs before activation. There also are no remaining NMPs in Alaska, except those between ParkRd (usanp route in Denali National Park) and AK 3/I-A4, which I'll fix tonight with a tweak to the ParkRd route file. Otherwise, I think all the route files are in synch with each other and with connecting routes in Canada.

si404 did a peer review some time ago. However, I think the system would benefit from at least a brief second look before activation. In particular, I would welcome comments on whether to truncate AK 10's Cordova segment, in light of the long-term bridge closures discussed in the preceding post; keeping two unsigned segments of otherwise signed routes (as explained in the thread on TM's temporary forum on the AARoads forum (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16714.0), before we set up this forum); and other notes in that thread.

Should the Interstate highways (A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4) be included, since they are unsigned? Most other unsigned highways in this "Travel Mapping" project are not included. This would bleed over to the unsigned Puerto Rico ones (PR-1, PR-2, and PR-3), too.

Should the Interstate highways (A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4) be included, since they are unsigned? Most other unsigned highways in this "Travel Mapping" project are not included. This would bleed over to the unsigned Puerto Rico ones (PR-1, PR-2, and PR-3), too.

For better or for worse, TM's predecessor project CHM specifically included unsigned routes for the U.S. Interstates only. Another example is Maryland's unsigned I-595. TM adopted and has stuck with that rule.

Thank you for clearing that up. I'm a U.S. Roads editor on Wikipedia, and we have articles on unsigned highways there, but here, most unsigned highways are not included. That's a good rule, including Interstate highways. What about U.S. highways?

This was less cut & dry in the early days, but we've moved toward excluding unsigned ones.For example, there was originally a US 34 Business (Glenwood, IA) (http://cmap.m-plex.com/hb/hwymap.php?r=ia.us034busgle).IIRC, it's still in the AASHTO route logs; Iowa never put in an application to remove it.Nonetheless; it's not signed, and hung around a while before eventually getting deleted. (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=1845.msg4541#msg4541)

TM's predecessor project CHM specifically included unsigned routes for the U.S. Interstates only.

Quebec Autoroutes too, yes?

All of Quebec's Autoroutes are signed. One supposed three-digit Autoroute west of Montreal was left in CHM's original Quebec Freeways system, even though it was unsigned. We later determined that the highway officially wasn't an Autoroute at all, so we removed it from that system. It is signed as a regular provincial route, and recently added back to our Highway Browser on a "preview" basis as part of the newly-drafted Quebec provincial highways system.

This was less cut & dry in the early days, but we've moved toward excluding unsigned ones.For example, there was originally a US 34 Business (Glenwood, IA) (http://cmap.m-plex.com/hb/hwymap.php?r=ia.us034busgle).IIRC, it's still in the AASHTO route logs; Iowa never put in an application to remove it.Nonetheless; it's not signed, and hung around a while before eventually getting deleted. (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=1845.msg4541#msg4541)

Business U.S. (and Interstate) routes are a different animal than the mainline routes. They sometimes are quietly decommissioned once the affected communities have gotten over being bypassed by a new freeway, without any official notice (even to AASHTO) other than the removal of their business route signage. In states with sloppy record-keeping of their active business routes, sometimes signage is the only indication, other than a stale AASHTO listing, that the route still officially exists.

I'm not sure there are any unsigned mainline U.S. routes, but certainly there have been unsigned U.S. and Interstate business routes, which we normally remove even if they're still technically on AASHTO's books.

I'm not sure there are any unsigned mainline U.S. routes, but certainly there have been unsigned U.S. and Interstate business routes, which we normally remove even if they're still technically on AASHTO's books.

I assume you mean US routes non-concurrent with interstates in places that don't post concurrencies well or at all....

US 163 had a long unsigned portion on paper until relatively recently.

Virginia has US routes whose posting stops before their official endpoint - US 58, (I would argue) US 60, US 250, (likely) US 258. South Carolina has this with US 52 (US 78 is finally posted at its endpoint though) and maybe US 21 now for quite a distance. Tennessee does this with US 76 and US 127 and since Tennessee does post concurrencies it could be argued US 74 fits here as well. North Carolina may have US 74's east end unsigned now for a distance, in addition to US 70.

I'm not sure there are any unsigned mainline U.S. routes, but certainly there have been unsigned U.S. and Interstate business routes, which we normally remove even if they're still technically on AASHTO's books.

I assume you mean US routes non-concurrent with interstates in places that don't post concurrencies well or at all....

I was talking about US routes that aren't signed at all, anywhere. For example, on one of the isolated non-US route segments in usaak, where every route marker "disappeared" as soon as it was posted, until the state DOT gave up (even the former US 666 never got to that point). If it's signage that's lousy by lower-48 standards but typical in the Arctic (like gaps of over 100 miles between reassurance markers, or no route signage on concurrencies except at each end), I'm still counting it as "signed".

According to this map from the state DOT (http://www.dot.state.ak.us/iways/511/AK_hwys_numbers.pdf), AK 5 goes up to Eagle rather than to the YT border at Little Gold.

That looks like an old map.

Part 2 of the current Alaska Traffic Manual (2016 edition) (http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcstraffic/assets/pdf/atm/current/part2.pdf), at pages 55-56, has a map showing AK 5 turning east to the Canadian border rather than continuing north to Eagle. It also has a route definition table confirming that AK 5 includes the Top of the World Highway to the border, and part of the Taylor Highway but only between Top of the World and the Alaska Highway.

I had an e-mail exchange with someone at Alaska DOT&PF on the previously confusing definition of AK 5, which might've led to the clearer definition in the current manual.

OTOH, I'll have to follow up on an ambiguity in the current ATM on the definition of AK 10's northern segment, about whether it includes the McCarthy Road between Chitina and McCarthy as is now in the HB, or rather ends in Chitina. The 2012-2015 ATM supplements specified that AK 10 ended in McCarthy (http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcstraffic/assets/pdf/atm/interim/part_2_int_add_2011atms.pdf#page=65), much to my surprise (no AK 10 signage east of Chitina when I was last there in 2012, and the mileposts reset to zero in Chitina and change to a distinctive Chitina-McCarthy Road milepost style). The current ATM removes the specific reference to McCarthy, and suggests that AK 10 ends where the McCarthy Road begins in Chitina. I'm leaning to truncating the route to end in Chitina, but plan to re-contact Alaska DOT&PF to confirm that.

Alaska DOT&PF confirms that the northern (Chitina) segment of AK 10 ends in Chitina, where the Edgerton Highway ends and the McCarthy Road begins, rather than where the McCarthy Road ends in McCarthy as it was in the HB. I'll submit a pull request for this change tomorrow or Sunday. EDIT: AK 10 truncation is now in the HB.

With this loose end tied up, I think usaak is ready to be activated, after clearing a sharp angle Datacheck error and any temporary points in route files, unless someone would first like to take another look at this system or provide other comments. Otherwise, I'll activate usaak at the end of this month.

OldRicHwy points: Was there an effort to include most or all of these, was it largely as-needed for shaping, or did the age of the bypass (EG, _G & _H) factor into the decision?The series skips from _E to _G, with no _F.AK5:Many points are a wee bit off-center, probably due to older less precise cartography when AK5 was first drafted. It may benefit to load into WPTedit and thaw & recenter points (I could GISplunge it if you're interested). In particular, a new JeepTr (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=63.585165&lon=-142.357207) & +X840617 (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=63.598848&lon=-142.351634) will get the center line more clearly within tolerance.

out of tolerance between +X669253 & +X378006+X275517, +X819620, & ++X571860 can becomw two shapers if you're so inclined.+X973259 can be deleted+X284856 looks nicer here (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=64.086907&lon=-141.596067) :)

One overall comment: si404 did a peer review of usaak already, and some of the things you note made it past his earlier review. My suggestion for a "second look" of this system really was to draw comments on some of the more global issues raised by the system, including one (the indefinite but not necessarily permanent bridge closures in the middle of ak010cor) I hadn't brought up before Si did his review.

BluLakeRd: checking satellite and GMSV, I see no road junction in the area

Mapnik shows a junction to the east, to which I've moved the point. The old waypoint was carried over from CHM days, and the access road may've been relocated (or Mapnik may've improved its mapping) since then.

BTW, I also added ThoLakeRd on the other side of the switchback. Mapnik doesn't label that access road, but Alaska DOT&PF's route log (taken offline a few years ago) does. It also gets rid of the sharp angle error that had been at that switchback.

Quote

WorGlaSRS: "State Recreation Site"?

Yep. A "drive-up" glacier a short walk from the parking lot, which gives you a great view of all the crud the underside of a glacier picks up as it slowly flows downhill.

Quote

+X880724: potential OldRicHwy point?

Nope, no intersection in the area. +x230805 would be a more likely candidate, though it looks like the old highway was closed south of there and no longer connects to OldRicHwy_B.

Quote

+X877209 off-center

Off by about 0.05 mile, so I've gone ahead and shifted it on top of the highway as shown in Mapnik. That said, I'm not crazy about doing that for other routes, unless the point is far enough off-center that the Mapnik trace strays outside the lateral tolerance lines in the Waypoint Editor. I get pretty fussy about placement of labeled waypoints. But as I've said elsewhere (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=1952.msg8410#msg8410), I don't view shaping point placement as a high-precision exercise. Especially in the Arctic, where Mapnik can sometimes de-center previously well-centered shaping points as it gradually brings its mapping up to normal lower-48 quality.

Quote

Is +X466714 waiting for a valid name, to become visible in the future? Otherwise, move north

It's the access road to an airstrip alongside the highway. But I can't find a name for that airstrip or the access road, not even in the DOT route log or the Milepost's more up-to-date and highly-detailed route log.

I made the third change. I made the first, then slid the shaping point a little farther north so I could remove another shaping point. The second change didn't do anything for me.

Quote

OldRicHwy points: Was there an effort to include most or all of these, was it largely as-needed for shaping, or did the age of the bypass (EG, _G & _H) factor into the decision?The series skips from _E to _G, with no _F.

The points were included only as needed for shaping or to eliminate/reduce distance errors. Indeed, OldRicHwy_A isn't even the southernmost intersection with the old highway. A waypoint there would've been otherwise unneeded. Others were skipped for similar reasons, unless I know that a turnoff for the old highway is used by ordinary travelers to access local businesses, etc.

I could change _G and _H to _F and _G to fix the sequence, but that could screw someone who is using the _G point (no easy way to find that out, in a preview system). So I'm leaving those alone.

One overall comment: si404 did a peer review of usaak already, and some of the things you note made it past his earlier review.

How did I miss the fact that that had happened? -_- Oh OK, AARoads, 2015...I'f I'm not finding much more than minor shaping nitpicks that aren't of much importance, then usaak is probably, pardon the pun, in pretty good shape.If Si already gave a full review, then I can call off my review if you'd prefer, and just let you activate the system. You've been waiting on usaak long enough.

Quote

My suggestion for a "second look" of this system really was to draw comments on some of the more global issues raised by the system, including one (the indefinite but not necessarily permanent bridge closures in the middle of ak010cor) I hadn't brought up before Si did his review.

"indefinite but not necessarily permanent bridge closures" -- would the IN912 precedent apply here?I'll reread the AARoads thread, and this one, to catch up on global issues.

Quote from: yakra

+X880724: potential OldRicHwy point?

Quote

Nope, no intersection in the area. +x230805 would be a more likely candidate,

Oops, I guess what I saw in satellite view was a utility or pipeline ROW.

Quote

though it looks like the old highway was closed south of there and no longer connects to OldRicHwy_B.

Since there's a point there anyway, unhide & optionally mark as closed?

Quote

That said, I'm not crazy about doing that for other routes, unless the point is far enough off-center that the Mapnik trace strays outside the lateral tolerance lines in the Waypoint Editor. I get pretty fussy about placement of labeled waypoints.

On AK5, WinTr_A is significantly off-center, as well as the aforementioned JeepTr.

I could change _G and _H to _F and _G to fix the sequence, but that could screw someone who is using the _G point (no easy way to find that out, in a preview system). So I'm leaving those alone.

Preview systems show up in pointsinuse.log, E.G. canmbw routes such as mb.rt042 .No OldRicHwy points are in use. Same result if I search GitHub (https://github.com/TravelMapping/UserData/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=OldRicHwy&type=).

My suggestion for a "second look" of this system really was to draw comments on some of the more global issues raised by the system, including one (the indefinite but not necessarily permanent bridge closures in the middle of ak010cor) I hadn't brought up before Si did his review.

"indefinite but not necessarily permanent bridge closures" -- would the IN912 precedent apply here?I'll reread the AARoads thread, and this one, to catch up on global issues.

I discuss the IN 912 precedent above. Basically, that closure was thought to be permanent, only that (assumed?) decision was reversed later, prompting some grumbling from people who'd clinched the route before what turned out to be a temporary closure.

Quote

On AK5, WinTr_A is significantly off-center, as well as the aforementioned JeepTr.

Hmmm, I updated labeled points on that file last month. Maybe Mapnik updated its mapping in the meantime. I'll go ahead and make those fixes, and while I'm at it check the shaping points.

Some labeled waypoints, either in this file or others, with both coordinates ending in 0 came out of my GPS receiver (which spits out only five digits after the decimal point). Unless Mapnik has since provided an intersection point of its own to replace my GPS reads, I'm reluctant to change those, since I'd be only guessing what the new coordinates should be.

si404 did a peer review some time ago. However, I think the system would benefit from at least a brief second look before activation. In particular, I would welcome comments on whether to truncate AK 10's Cordova segment, in light of the long-term bridge closures discussed in the preceding post;

I'd say truncate it. I don't like the idea of including inaccessible road segments, that cannot be clinched, in a route file to be marked as clinched.If another segment farther east can be accessed by a (private?) ferry, then splitting the route is a potential option. However...

Quote

keeping two unsigned segments of otherwise signed routes (as explained in the thread on TM's temporary forum on the AARoads forum ... )

IE, AK 7 (Petersburg) and AK 10 (Cordova). I'm less convinced on this; I don't think the exception to the policy of excluding signed routes is justified. I fear the slippery slope...

Quote

and other notes in that thread.

Ferries: As far as I can see, there are no routes containing ferry segments, even short river crossings. Everything that should be chopped, is. Good.

"Pump Station _" points: Only used when needed for shaping or to break up long visible distance segments, I assume?

Quote from: aaroads

Any suggested fixes on those segments will need to be made to one or more other routes, too, so I'll be more reluctant to make such changes than for the non-Interstate routes.

Right, any changes here would involve edits to activated routes anyway, so I understand putting less priority there.That said though, at least looking at AK1, there seemed to be some points for minor side roads, not necessary for shaping or distance, that could be trimmed. (Relics from early Interstate days, perhaps?) Do what thou wilt.

In particular, I would welcome comments on whether to truncate AK 10's Cordova segment, in light of the long-term bridge closures discussed in the preceding post;

I'd say truncate it. I don't like the idea of including inaccessible road segments, that cannot be clinched, in a route file to be marked as clinched.

Even if the state is treating the closures as temporary?

In the usanp system, I pushed for and got re-inclusion of part of Hawaii's Crater Rim Drive that has been closed for several years (not before I and at least one other user clinched the entire loop), but may reopen once volcanic activity at that crater calms down and shifts to other parts of the volcano.

Quote

Quote

keeping two unsigned segments of otherwise signed routes (as explained in the thread on TM's temporary forum on the AARoads forum ... )

IE, AK 7 (Petersburg) and AK 10 (Cordova). I'm less convinced on this; I don't think the exception to the policy of excluding signed routes is justified. I fear the slippery slope...

I think there are lots of ways to avoid the slippery slope. One, for AK 10 (Cordova), is an exception for a route the state has tried to sign, only to be frustrated by persistent sign vandalism. Another, for both segments, is to limit exceptions to jurisdictions that don't assign or post route numbers for most of their highways (in Alaska, there are hundreds of state-maintained highways, but only about two dozen have route numbers). In my other jurisdictions, where route numbers are generally assigned to every state/provincial/territorial highway no matter how unimportant, I've not made or pressed for any exceptions, even though their exclusion caused me and other users some heartburn (e.g., CA 259). But Alaska is very different.

I think we've relaxed the unsigned routes rule in systems and jurisdictions outside North America where route signage practices are different than those in most of the U.S. and Canada. Right?

Quote

"Pump Station _" points: Only used when needed for shaping or to break up long visible distance segments, I assume?

No, I included points for all the pump stations that are on or near AK 11, AK 2, or AK 4. Only gaps in the number sequence are where the station is far from the highway, or was never built.

I discuss the IN 912 precedent above. Basically, that closure was thought to be permanent, only that (assumed?) decision was reversed later,

A closure for repairs or (re)construction that lasts weeks, or even a few months, is one thing. But if a closure lasts several years with no definite plans or specific time frame to reopen, that's another...

Quote

prompting some grumbling from people who'd clinched the route before what turned out to be a temporary closure.

Yes, their maps won't show a small segment, and their precise mileages won't be exactly tickety-boo. But they'd still be able to mark a 100% clinch of what we do have in the system.On the flipside, consider the traveler who visits Cordova, and dutifully drives everything open and accessible, only to return home a few thousand miles away, check the HB, and find... SURPRISE! He Got Robbed! There's a section of the route listed in the HB that's not traveled, and not able to be traveled.IMO the plight of this latter group of travelers outweighs that of the first group.

Ultimately we should be working towards something that makes it easy for users to plan, execute, and document their travels.

Coordinates:If point coords / OSM are a moving target, it's probably not worth the hassle of making however-many passes to tighten them up.

Quote

One, for AK 10 (Cordova), is an exception for a route the state has tried to sign, only to be frustrated by persistent sign vandalism.

I thought about this history as I considered the route. Didn't they state relent, and stop attempting to sign the route? That makes it a de facto unsigned route. (For whatever reason, the state is not signing it.)

Quote

Another, for both segments, is to limit exceptions to jurisdictions that don't assign or post route numbers for most of their highways (in Alaska, there are hundreds of state-maintained highways, but only about two dozen have route numbers).

Maine is not 100% dissimilar. We have loads of unnumbered state & state-aid highways, without posted route numbers, only internal inventory route numbers similar to the six-digit codes AK DOT uses. If "ME1C" & "ME5B" have ordinary "touring route" numbers but are unsigned, should they be included? I say they should not.Such an exception could be used to justify all kinds of inclusions, ones that might not be Good Things.

Quote

I think we've relaxed the unsigned routes rule in systems and jurisdictions outside North America where route signage practices are different than those in most of the U.S. and Canada. Right?

I can't speak with any knowledge here; I've paid much less attention to the goings-on outside North America.

Quote

No, I included points for all the pump stations that are on or near AK 11, AK 2, or AK 4. Only gaps in the number sequence are where the station is far from the highway, or was never built.

Hm. Are they really useful to most regional travelers who'd be using this site though. If they're not needed for shaping or breaking up long visible distance, I'd say nix them.

Re the temporary/indefinite closure, what's the harm in plotting the route as-is for now, then adding the connecting segment in the future when it reopens? Anyone who had clinched it prior to the closure could then add in the resurrected segment and count the route as clinched again. The same will probably happen when IN 912 is reconnected.

One, for AK 10 (Cordova), is an exception for a route the state has tried to sign, only to be frustrated by persistent sign vandalism.

I thought about this history as I considered the route. Didn't they state relent, and stop attempting to sign the route? That makes it a de facto unsigned route. (For whatever reason, the state is not signing it.)

"Relent" is not really the right word. "Give up" is more like it, once the state realized that it was a waste of time and money to post route markers that would quickly disappear. But the state still includes the route in its short official list of numbered state highways, and shows it on tourist maps. Also, the popular private Milepost guide to Arctic highways identifies it as part of AK 10 (along with AK 10's Chitina segment, which is signed). The route designation is not exactly kept a secret from travelers, much as many Cordova residents might prefer otherwise.

Quote

Quote

No, I included points for all the pump stations that are on or near AK 11, AK 2, or AK 4. Only gaps in the number sequence are where the station is far from the highway, or was never built.

Hm. Are they really useful to most regional travelers who'd be using this site though. If they're not needed for shaping or breaking up long visible distance, I'd say nix them.

Most or all of them serve one or both purposes. Especially in the almost completely unpopulated areas north of Fairbanks, where the majority of pump stations are located, you can't be too choosy about waypoints.

While the pump stations are unlikely turnaround points for tourists, they are destinations for pipeline workers, and contractors or vendors providing services or supplies to the stations. Kind of like our waypoint for I-5 exit 62 within the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base, where you need a military ID or other authorization to leave or enter the base, or otherwise to bike or hike the bike trail which roughly parallels the Interstate north of exit 62.

Re the temporary/indefinite closure, what's the harm in plotting the route as-is for now, then adding the connecting segment in the future when it reopens? Anyone who had clinched it prior to the closure could then add in the resurrected segment and count the route as clinched again. The same will probably happen when IN 912 is reconnected.

Most of the disconnected segment still gets some tourist travel. They can't drive their own (or rental) vehicles, but a tour operator will ferry them across the river and then use a vehicle stationed east of the bridge closures to drive them the rest of the way to the Million Dollar Bridge near the route's east end.

We could split the Cordova segment at the main channel of the Copper River, about two-thirds of the way between GraPitRd and GoatMtnTr.

If it were literally just the length of a bridge and I were able to drive up to both ends of the bridge, I would call it good and consider the route clinched in spite of the closure. This is my routine method of handling bridges closed for construction in the lower 48, and we don't go putting gaps in routes for those.

I'd also argue that just because a segment of a route is closed for construction doesn't mean it temporarily ceases existing. Rather than breaking the route in the HB, I would continue including it. It is then up to the individual traveler to determine whether to drive up to each end of the closure and call it good, or decide the route cannot be clinched until the closed section reopens and they need to return at a later date or postpone their trip accordingly.

If it were literally just the length of a bridge and I were able to drive up to both ends of the bridge, I would call it good and consider the route clinched in spite of the closure. This is my routine method of handling bridges closed for construction in the lower 48, and we don't go putting gaps in routes for those.

I'd also argue that just because a segment of a route is closed for construction doesn't mean it temporarily ceases existing. Rather than breaking the route in the HB, I would continue including it. It is then up to the individual traveler to determine whether to drive up to each end of the closure and call it good, or decide the route cannot be clinched until the closed section reopens and they need to return at a later date or postpone their trip accordingly.

The total closure length (not just one bridge) is probably at least a mile or two. I don't know exactly where the DOT has placed the barricades at each end, since satellite imagery in that area is poor and/or outdated enough that I can't see any barricades. The 2017 Milepost says the west closure point is at mile 35.8, 0.3 mile west of the first closed bridge, and about 14 miles west of where the state highway officially ends east of the Million Dollar Bridge.

Also, you can drive yourself only to the west closure point from Cordova. Getting around the closure means a jetboat ride to a waiting shuttle for the Million Dollar Bridge. I don't know where the shuttle starts relative to the bridge closures (the tour company's website doesn't specify where, and in any case that might need adjustment depending on what the Copper River is doing), but I doubt it will take you to the east closure point. Also, AK10Cor is isolated from the rest of the state highway system except via the state ferry to Cordova, so travelers can't drive to the east closure point on their own.

I think we've relaxed the unsigned routes rule in systems and jurisdictions outside North America where route signage practices are different than those in most of the U.S. and Canada. Right?

I can't speak with any knowledge here; I've paid much less attention to the goings-on outside North America.

As one data point, when Tim tried to apply his "no unsigned routes" rule to a British route system, the reaction from across the pond was "WTF?" (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=2265.msg8155#msg8155). There, si404 indicated he could live with keeping similar unsigned routes in the HB, and was generally in the "rare exceptions" (rather than "no exceptions") camp. In his usaak review, he was OK with my proposed inclusions of the two unsigned isolated segments of otherwise signed routes.

Another, for both segments, is to limit exceptions to jurisdictions that don't assign or post route numbers for most of their highways (in Alaska, there are hundreds of state-maintained highways, but only about two dozen have route numbers).

Maine is not 100% dissimilar. We have loads of unnumbered state & state-aid highways, without posted route numbers, only internal inventory route numbers similar to the six-digit codes AK DOT uses. If "ME1C" & "ME5B" have ordinary "touring route" numbers but are unsigned, should they be included? I say they should not.Such an exception could be used to justify all kinds of inclusions, ones that might not be Good Things.

Are your hypothetical (?) ME1C and ME5B short spurs or loops from main routes? AK 10 (Cordova) and AK 7 (Petersburg) are both over 30 miles long. Also, even with Alaska's sparse route signage in rural areas, there are always route markers at junctions with other numbered state routes (Cordova and Petersburg have no such junctions, though other isolated numbered route segments have a little route signage), while I'm guessing your Maine routes have junctions but no route markers there.

Re the temporary/indefinite closure, what's the harm in plotting the route as-is for now, then adding the connecting segment in the future when it reopens? Anyone who had clinched it prior to the closure could then add in the resurrected segment and count the route as clinched again. The same will probably happen when IN 912 is reconnected.

Most of the disconnected segment still gets some tourist travel. They can't drive their own (or rental) vehicles, but a tour operator will ferry them across the river and then use a vehicle stationed east of the bridge closures to drive them the rest of the way to the Million Dollar Bridge near the route's east end.

And anyone with a boat can take a bike or perhaps a motorcycle across the river, to travel the disconnected segment without regard to the tour operator's itinerary or schedule.

Quote

We could split the Cordova segment at the main channel of the Copper River, about two-thirds of the way between GraPitRd and GoatMtnTr.

I'm warming to this solution. It also addresses yakra's concerns about future travelers to Cordova being surprised by being unable to clinch the entire Copper River Highway. Having a split Childs Glacier segment (that glacier, and the Million Dollar Bridge, are the main tourist attractions east of the Copper River delta) will illustrate that there is a currently closed segment in the delta. That closed segment would be about two miles long (including two bridges known to be closed, and a few others in the delta east of those bridges). That would leave in the HB about a dozen miles of highway east of the delta, as well as about three dozen to the west.

Only suggestion for additional review would be to look at AK 1 south of Soldotna (where Interstate A-3 ends) and AK 6. Si commented extensively on those segments, you might check how I responded to those comments.

On the flipside, consider the traveler who visits Cordova, and dutifully drives everything open and accessible, only to return home a few thousand miles away, check the HB, and find... SURPRISE! He Got Robbed! There's a section of the route listed in the HB that's not traveled, and not able to be traveled.

I would think he would look at the HB before his trip, and would thus know when he got there that he'd need to come back. Ideally, Google Maps and 511 would both show the closure so he'd know in advance that attempting to clinch AK 10 is inadvisable at this time, but for some reason neither shows the closure (and it doesn't appear that Alaska 511 shows closures at all, leaving me very unimpressed with it). In any case, since he would now look at the HB and see a split route, he'd think he clinched it unless he somehow knew better (and unless he follows Alaska roads I doubt it; for most jurisdictions, TM is the only source I have on where routes go), and he'd get a VERY nasty surprise when the bridge reopened.

In any case, since he would now look at the HB and see a split route, he'd think he clinched it unless he somehow knew better (and unless he follows Alaska roads I doubt it; for most jurisdictions, TM is the only source I have on where routes go), and he'd get a VERY nasty surprise when the bridge reopened.

In many ways, this situation resembles the more common lower-48 scenario of a road with planned extensions. Sometimes, like with the various mutations of I-69, it's well known that any clinches of the segments now in the HB could be undone by new construction. In other cases, the future extensions are not as obvious. All the HB can do is to show what's currently open (subject to winter snow closures and the like), and leave it to the traveler to inquire about scenarios where the highway might get extended or (more rarely) truncated.

In this case, the HB as just updated does all that really can be done, by highlighting that something weird is going on with AK 10 in the Copper River delta, and that travelers should inquire further. They could start with checking the HB's Mapnik map, which shows the bridge that currently ends mid-river where its east end was scoured away. Smart Alaska travelers will also buy and review the annually-updated Milepost travel guide to Alaskan and other Arctic highways. Its Cordova writeup explains the route interruption in the delta, and provides info on how to get yourself (sans vehicle) around the closure in order to visit the Childs Glacier and the nearby historic Million Dollar Bridge.

In any case, since he would now look at the HB and see a split route, he'd think he clinched it unless he somehow knew better (and unless he follows Alaska roads I doubt it; for most jurisdictions, TM is the only source I have on where routes go), and he'd get a VERY nasty surprise when the bridge reopened.

That's a less nasty surprise than finding out you had to clinch something you weren't able to, due to it being closed & inaccessible, in order to mark off AK10 as clinched.In any case, when the bridge reopens and AK10 is reconnected, people will not have clinched 100% of it. The only ones immediately able to mark it clinched would be those who traveled it years ago, before the closures. C'est la vie.But if the route's split beforehand, at least some folks will be able to mark it clinched until then.

As Oscar notes, it best matches what's there on the ground.The point about I-69 & its ilk is well-made; disconnected route segments getting connected by new construction is a common occurrence.

I guess we have different definitions of what counts as clinched. I would not count such a clinch even though TM would. As such, the map would no longer be a guide as to what I consider clinched and not, and I'd need to keep a note somewhere else to come back.

Meanwhile, there's precedent for having unclinchable systems in TM - just look at the truck route in PA that bans cars.

I guess we have different definitions of what counts as clinched. I would not count such a clinch even though TM would. As such, the map would no longer be a guide as to what I consider clinched and not, and I'd need to keep a note somewhere else to come back.

I'm in the same boat but prefer Oscar & Eric's solution. Better to have TM count something as clinched that I don't (I keep a list) than have TM count something as unclinched when I consider it clinched.

Meanwhile, there's precedent for having unclinchable systems in TM - just look at the truck route in PA that bans cars.

Well, that's not unclinchable. There have been cases where all traffic gets routed down US 219 Truck due to an incident or construction. And it's possible theoretically for anyone to clinch it in a truck (a rented U-haul can be driven without a CDL but would be required to go that way, for example).Or... you could just defy the "no cars" sign and drive down that way. Multiple people have done this. ;)

A better example is the Crater Rim Drive oscar brought up on page 2. It's in the HB, despite being indefinitely closed and physically impassable due to volcanic activity.

On the other hand, the 4 1/2 mile segment of CA 39 that's been closed and in general limbo since 1978 is not in the HB, and it is theoretically traversable on foot or by bike.

Meanwhile M-185, which is physically impossible to clinch by car and must be done on foot or by bike, is in the HB.

So it seems to me there isn't a fully consistent precedent here... these types of situations are handled on a case by case basis. Ultimately I guess I'm okay with the decision to bifurcate AK 10... since it's more than just a bridge that's closed, apparently.

I guess we have different definitions of what counts as clinched. I would not count such a clinch even though TM would. As such, the map would no longer be a guide as to what I consider clinched and not, and I'd need to keep a note somewhere else to come back.

I'm in the same boat but prefer Oscar & Eric's solution. Better to have TM count something as clinched that I don't (I keep a list) than have TM count something as unclinched when I consider it clinched.

See I solve this problem by just matching what I do or don't count with what TM does. Then I don't need to keep track of exceptions anywhere else. :)

Of course, this presents opportunities for indigestion to be created if things are added to the HB in an area I had previously clinched, thus robbing me of my clinch since the goalposts were moved (see: Stupid Truck Routes).

Meanwhile, there's precedent for having unclinchable systems in TM - just look at the truck route in PA that bans cars.

Well, that's not unclinchable. There have been cases where all traffic gets routed down US 219 Truck due to an incident or construction. And it's possible theoretically for anyone to clinch it in a truck (a rented U-haul can be driven without a CDL but would be required to go that way, for example).Or... you could just defy the "no cars" sign and drive down that way. Multiple people have done this. ;)

My opinion = this is a legitimate route. Wanna clinch it? Rent a U-Haul or help a friend move if need be. :) :(

This post reminded me of MI185, which you beat me to posting about. As that one punk rock band said, "RIDE A (*%#&(#ING BIKE!" :)And then there's the VT65 Brookfield Floating Bridge, clinchable by foot or presumably bike.And the in-devel NY ProMtnHwy, clinchable by bus, motorcycle, or on foot.

On the other hand, the 4 1/2 mile segment of CA 39 that's been closed and in general limbo since 1978 is not in the HB, and it is theoretically traversable on foot or by bike.

This, I think is a good call to be left out of the HB.For the sake of argument though, what separates it from VT65?Well, VT65 still looks pretty doable for someone in a wheelchair. ;) (I'm not disabled though, and should definitely defer to those who are.) That could potentially separate VT65 from MI185 though. Uhh... HAIL ERIS!(Pedicab?)

See I solve this problem by just matching what I do or don't count with what TM does. Then I don't need to keep track of exceptions anywhere else. :)

That's more or less my approach. Back before CHM existed, I didn't count NY I-278 as clinched, because I was missing the mainline between the ramp gores @ NY440. Now? *Shrug!*Best not to think about my clinch of USA I-90, maybe... LA LA LA LA!!

Of course, this presents opportunities for indigestion to be created if things are added to the HB in an area I had previously clinched, thus robbing me of my clinch since the goalposts were moved (see: Stupid Truck Routes).

Perhaps, but there's always this possibility. A relocation of ME25 here, an extension of ME166 there...

On the other hand, the 4 1/2 mile segment of CA 39 that's been closed and in general limbo since 1978 is not in the HB, and it is theoretically traversable on foot or by bike.

This, I think is a good call to be left out of the HB.

I agree as well. The road cannot be driven and will, barring any crazy turn of events, never will be able to be driven again. Since we're not in the business of mapping clinches for bike and pedestrian trails, it therefore doesn't belong in the HB.

As for M-185, this is part of why I say this is a case by case basis sort of thing. M-185, like that segment of CA 39, cannot and never will be able to be traversed in a car. However, there is longstanding precedent within the roadgeek community of it being "the only M-route you need a bike to clinch", and it's actually signed with shields and actively maintained - unlike the closed segment of CA 39, which is abandoned in every way except on paper. So I would not advocate for M-185 to be removed from the HB.

Of course, this presents opportunities for indigestion to be created if things are added to the HB in an area I had previously clinched, thus robbing me of my clinch since the goalposts were moved (see: Stupid Truck Routes).

Perhaps, but there's always this possibility. A relocation of ME25 here, an extension of ME166 there...

I don't think the two circumstances are comparable. I accept changes being made in the HB to reflect physical changes or installation of new signage in the field. It happens. And if you can't go clinch the new road you can at least still say you clinched things as they existed in year X.

On the other hand, when a road has existed all along and nothing about it has changed other than that someone suddenly decided it was worthy of adding to the HB when no one deemed it worthy before... that is what irks me. These types of changes reflect a lack of foresight or organizational lapse on our part and would not happen if we were able to maintain a more consistent vision as to what should and should not count.

Well, that's not unclinchable. There have been cases where all traffic gets routed down US 219 Truck due to an incident or construction. And it's possible theoretically for anyone to clinch it in a truck (a rented U-haul can be driven without a CDL but would be required to go that way, for example).Or... you could just defy the "no cars" sign and drive down that way. Multiple people have done this. ;)

Indeed - clinched doesn't have to be in-a-car. I've got over 100 miles that I've only covered on-foot, and maybe 20 miles only done on-bike.

If you want a narrower description of clinched, then make it so on your stats, just don't force everyone else to obey your narrower concept.

Quote

A better example is the Crater Rim Drive oscar brought up on page 2. It's in the HB, despite being indefinitely closed and physically impassable due to volcanic activity.

Which I originally drafted without the closed bit, but there were complaints.

A better example is the Crater Rim Drive oscar brought up on page 2. It's in the HB, despite being indefinitely closed and physically impassable due to volcanic activity.

Which I originally drafted without the closed bit, but there were complaints.

That road's still there, was partially reopened after the initial closure, and can fully reopen at any time if volcanic activity shifts back to where it was until recently, at Pu'u O'o a few miles away from the road network.

Or... you could just defy the "no cars" sign and drive down that way. Multiple people have done this. ;)

Indeed - clinched doesn't have to be in-a-car. I've got over 100 miles that I've only covered on-foot, and maybe 20 miles only done on-bike.[/quote]I've clinched ME25 (well, all except for the bit bypassed by ME25BusWes) by bike. 100 miles on foot, though? Not bad!

A better example is the Crater Rim Drive oscar brought up on page 2. It's in the HB, despite being indefinitely closed and physically impassable due to volcanic activity.

Which I originally drafted without the closed bit, but there were complaints.

That road's still there, was partially reopened after the initial closure, and can fully reopen at any time if volcanic activity shifts back to where it was until recently, at Pu'u O'o a few miles away from the road network.

This is still listed as a temporary closure (or at least it was on my last visit in March 2017). While it might never reopen, the possibility exists that it will at sometime if there is a change in volcanic activity. Besides, as one of the drivers who clinched this before it closed, I'm still in favor of keeping it. Admittedly, I'm a bit biased on that last count. :D